These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17487215)

  • 21. [The application of microsatellite markers for parentage determination in selective breeding of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)].
    Wang HX; Wu CG; Zhang LS; Xiang JH
    Yi Chuan; 2006 Feb; 28(2):179-83. PubMed ID: 16520313
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Computationally efficient sibship and parentage assignment from multilocus marker data.
    Wang J
    Genetics; 2012 May; 191(1):183-94. PubMed ID: 22367033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Parentage testing of racing camels (Camelus dromedarius) using microsatellite DNA typing.
    Spencer PB; Wilson KJ; Tinson A
    Anim Genet; 2010 Dec; 41(6):662-5. PubMed ID: 20394604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Parentage analysis with genetic markers in natural populations. I. The expected proportion of offspring with unambiguous paternity.
    Chakraborty R; Meagher TR; Smouse PE
    Genetics; 1988 Mar; 118(3):527-36. PubMed ID: 3163316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Validation of microsatellite markers for routine horse parentage testing.
    Bowling AT; Eggleston-Stott ML; Byrns G; Clark RS; Dileanis S; Wictum E
    Anim Genet; 1997 Aug; 28(4):247-52. PubMed ID: 9345720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Performing Parentage Analysis in the Presence of Inbreeding and Null Alleles.
    Huang K; Mi R; Dunn DW; Wang T; Li B
    Genetics; 2018 Dec; 210(4):1467-1481. PubMed ID: 30337340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Unbiased estimation of relative reproductive success of different groups: evaluation and correction of bias caused by parentage assignment errors.
    Araki H; Blouin MS
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Nov; 14(13):4097-109. PubMed ID: 16262861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The aunt and uncle effect: an empirical evaluation of the confounding influence of full sibs of parents on pedigree reconstruction.
    Olsen JB; Busack C; Britt J; Bentzen P
    J Hered; 2001; 92(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 11447239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A bayesian framework for parentage analysis: the value of genetic and other biological data.
    Neff BD; Repka J; Gross MR
    Theor Popul Biol; 2001 Jun; 59(4):315-31. PubMed ID: 11560451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data.
    Jones OR; Wang J
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2010 May; 10(3):551-5. PubMed ID: 21565056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Sib-parentage testing using molecular markers when parents are unknown.
    García D; Carleos C; Parra D; Cañón J
    Anim Genet; 2002 Oct; 33(5):364-71. PubMed ID: 12354145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Determination of sibship in any two persons.
    Wenk RE; Traver M; Chiafari FA
    Transfusion; 1996 Mar; 36(3):259-62. PubMed ID: 8604513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The future of parentage analysis: From microsatellites to SNPs and beyond.
    Flanagan SP; Jones AG
    Mol Ecol; 2019 Feb; 28(3):544-567. PubMed ID: 30575167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A simulation module in the computer program COLONY for sibship and parentage analysis.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2013 Jul; 13(4):734-9. PubMed ID: 23615269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparing parentage inference software: reanalysis of a red deer pedigree.
    Walling CA; Pemberton JM; Hadfield JD; Kruuk LE
    Mol Ecol; 2010 May; 19(9):1914-28. PubMed ID: 20345675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Estimation of migration rates from marker-based parentage analysis.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2014 Jul; 23(13):3191-213. PubMed ID: 24863365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations.
    Jones AG; Ardren WR
    Mol Ecol; 2003 Oct; 12(10):2511-23. PubMed ID: 12969458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Accurate inference of relationships in sib-pair linkage studies.
    Boehnke M; Cox NJ
    Am J Hum Genet; 1997 Aug; 61(2):423-9. PubMed ID: 9311748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. About the power of biostatistics in sibling analysis-comparison of empirical and simulated data.
    von Wurmb-Schwark N; Podruks E; Schwark T; Göpel W; Fimmers R; Poetsch M
    Int J Legal Med; 2015 Nov; 129(6):1201-9. PubMed ID: 26292643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Power of exclusion of 19 microsatellite markers for parentage testing in river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis).
    Kathiravan P; Kataria RS; Mishra BP
    Mol Biol Rep; 2012 Aug; 39(8):8217-23. PubMed ID: 22555978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.